coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dzerzhynsk.
5.  On an unspecified date in April 1999 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Company “Dzerzhynskvugillia” (“the company”, Державне Підприємство «Дзержинськвугілля»). In particular, he claimed damages for a discrepancy in the calculations of compensation for a professional illness. On 5 April 1999 the Dzerzhynsk City Court (“the City Court”) opened proceedings on the applicant’s claim.
6.  On 6 December 1999 the City Court warned the company of a penalty for its failures to appear before the court.
7.  On 15 January 2002 the applicant lodged a new claim with the City Court against the company seeking indexation of his salary.
8.  Having been joined on 2 December 2002, the claims were dismissed by the City Court on 1 July 2004.
9.  In the meantime, the applicant had modified his claims four times and the Dzerzhynsk City Department of the State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases joined the proceedings as a second defendant. Between 7 February 2000 and 30 May 2002, the Court of Appeal quashed four first-instance judgments and ordered fresh hearings.
10.  On 10 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 1 July 2004 in part related to the compensation of a professional illness. The court, out of UAH 6,028 (EUR 844[1]) claimed by the applicant for pecuniary and UAH 50,000 (EUR 7,000) for non-pecuniary damage, awarded the applicant UAH 177 (EUR 25). The applicant appealed in cassation.
11.  On 4 June 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System Act (as amended on 22 February 2007), transmitted the applicant’s appeal to the Kyiv Court of Appeal which, on 9 October 2007, finally upheld the decisions of 1 July 2004 and 10 February 2005.
12.  In the course of the proceedings, two expert examinations were ordered and a number of procedural rulings were adopted. During the same period of time, the applicant filed nine procedural requests and eleven appeals, two of which did not meet procedural requirements.
13.  According to the Government, of the seventy one hearings scheduled between 5 April 1999 and 9 October 2007, nineteen were adjourned due to the company representative’s failure to attend, eleven were adjourned at request of one or both defendants, six were adjourned at the applicant’s request, four were adjourned owing to the presiding judge’s sickness or absence, one was adjourned due to both parties’ failure to attend, and two were adjourned for other reasons beyond the parties’ control.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Rivne.
5.  On 10 July 1998 M.B., a private person, lodged a claim with the Rivne Court requesting a contract by which a flat had been sold to him by the applicant and her husband to be declared valid.
6.  In November 1998 the applicant lodged a counter-claim seeking the eviction of M.B. and M.A. from the flat.
7.  On 3 December 1998 the Rivne Court allowed the M.B.’s claims. It found the applicant’s counter-claim unsubstantiated and dismissed them.
8.  On 15 March 1999 the Rivne Regional Court quashed the judgment of 3 December 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration finding that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the aspects of the case.
9.  On 22 December 2004 the Rivne Court, hearing the case in the presence of the applicant and her lawyer, allowed the claims of M.B. and rejected the applicant’s counter-claim. It found that the applicant and her son had moved from the disputed flat in May 1998 to live with her parents and she had voluntarily transferred the flat to M.B., though subsequently she refused to have the contract certified by a notary due to a disagreement with her husband.
10.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant and her lawyer appealed against the judgment of 22 December 2004.
11.  On 27 April 2005 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal heard the case in the presence of the applicant. The applicant requested the court to postpone the examination of her case as her lawyer could not participate in that hearing. The court rejected her request, dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 22 December 2004.
12.  On 15 August 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
13.  In the course of the proceedings the first-instance court scheduled thirty-one hearings, out of which two were not held because of the applicant’s failure to attend, one was adjourned for nine days to allow the applicant to study the case-file and one was adjourned for twenty-three days on the applicant’s request. Nineteen hearings were not held because of the other parties’ failure to appear or on their request for adjournment of the hearings. Between May 2000 and December 2002 there were five hearings scheduled, of which one was held. In 2003 there were six hearings scheduled and one held.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Piddubne, the Lviv Region.
5.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Chervonohrad Court against his former employer for re-calculation of monthly allowance for a work-related disease.
6.  On 27 March 2001 the court scheduled its first hearing for 2 April 2001 which was subsequently adjourned because of the applicant’s failure to appear.
7.  On 5 June 2001 the Chervonohrad Court left the applicant’s claim without examination for his repeated failure to appear before the court.
8.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 June 2001. He submitted that he had not been summoned to appear before the court and that he had become aware of that decision in January 2003.
9.  On 28 July 2003 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence in the case that the applicant had been duly informed of the time and date of the court hearings scheduled for 2 April and 5 June 2001. It quashed the decision of 5 June 2001 and remitted the case for a consideration by the first-instance court.
10.  On 1 December 2003 the Chervonohrad Court allowed the respondent’s request for transferring the case to a court of different territorial jurisdiction, the Sokal Court.
11.  On 9 January 2004 the Sokal Court received the case. On 25 February 2005 it scheduled its first hearing for 10 March 2005.
12.  On 30 December 2005 the Sokal Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. On 24 January 2006 the applicant appealed against the judgment.
13.  On 21 August 2006 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 30 December 2005.
14.  On 18 October 2006 the applicant lodged his appeal in cassation.
15.  On 27 December 2007 the Khmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
16.  In the course of the proceedings the hearings were adjourned five times because of either the applicant’s or his representative’s failure to appear or his requests for documents or adjournment of the case.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bad Brückenau, Germany.
6.  The Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office indicted the applicant for preparation to counterfeit money (section 304 of the Criminal Code).
7.  On 30 November 2006 the Budapest Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine.
8.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal held a public session and completed the findings of fact as established by the Regional Court. It observed that the defendant's act could be re-characterised as attempted aggravated fraud (section 318 of the Criminal Code) and enquired as to whether he wished to have an adjournment on that account. The applicant replied in the negative.
9.  On 10 October 2007 the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment and re-characterised the applicant's offence as forgery of public documents (section 274 of the Criminal Code). The applicant submitted that there had been no taking of evidence in this regard before the Court of Appeal. His sentence remained unchanged; nevertheless, he filed a petition for review.
10.  On 30 April 2009 the Supreme Court held a public session and upheld the applicant's conviction without taking evidence. In the reasoning of that decision, it was observed that the judgment of the Court of Appeal amounted to a violation of the substantive provisions of the Criminal Code in that although the applicant, a national of Germany, had committed the crime in question abroad, the lower courts had not explored whether his act was punishable under German law or obtained the Attorney General's requisite endorsement of the indictment. However, the Supreme Court held that the applicant's deed in fact constituted the offences of complicity in attempted aggravated fraud (section 318 of the Criminal Code) and in forgery of private documents (section 276 of the Criminal Code). It did not change the sanction imposed on the applicant. This decision was served on 18 June 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 8 July 1999 the İzmir Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant, charging him with a violation of the Associations Law.
6.  On 19 November 2003 the İzmir Criminal Court sentenced him to a fine.
7.  On 9 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 19 November 2003.
8.  On 28 November 2006 the İzmir Criminal Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the prosecution was time-barred.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in İstanbul.
5.  On 11 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud.
6.  On 12 February 2001 he was released pending trial.
7.  On 29 November 2005 the İstanbul Assize Court sentenced the applicant to two years and one month's imprisonment.
8.  On 19 October 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 29 November 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Amasya.
5.  On 29 August 2000 he brought proceedings before the Samsun Administrative Court for annulment of an administrative penalty imposed on him.
6.  On 20 December 2000 the court dismissed the applicant's request.
7.  On 22 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 20 December 2000.
8.  On 18 February 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's request once again.
9.  On 6 December 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court's General Council of Administrative Divisions quashed the judgment of 18 February 2004.
10.  On 28 February 2008 the court granted the applicant's request and annulled the administrative penalty imposed on the applicant.
11.  On 7 October 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 28 February 2008.
12.  On 28 February 2001 the applicant lodged a case with the Samsun Administrative Court for annulment of his appointment to a new post.
13.  On 31 October 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's request.
14.  On 21 February 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 31 October 2001.
15.  On 29 November 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
16.  On 8 January 2007 the applicant was notified of the decision dated 29 November 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 21 April 1998 he lodged a case with the Ankara Administrative Court for annulment of a decision to reject his dissertation.
6.  On 29 September 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's request.
7.  On 2 December 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 29 September 2004.
8.  On 2 October 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
9.  On 7 November 2006 the applicant was notified of the decision dated 2 October 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently serving his prison sentence in the Altay Region.
5.  The applicant was charged with possession of firearms and several counts of robbery. The pre-trial proceedings were concluded in September 2003 and then the case against the applicant and four other persons was submitted to the Altay Regional Court for trial.
6.  During the preliminary hearing on 28 November 2003, the presiding judge informed the defendants of their procedural rights, including, in particular, the right to free legal assistance, the right to meet with their lawyers without restrictions, the right to bring an appeal against a trial court's judgment, the right to participate in the appeal hearing and the right to defend themselves through all lawful means.
7.  On 11 February 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment.
8.  In the operative part of its judgment, the trial court informed that any appeal had to be lodged with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation within ten days. The time-limit for the defendants started running from the day when they were served with a copy of the judgment. For other participants in the proceedings, it would run from the day of pronouncement of the judgment. There was no further information as to the right of the defendants to ask the authorities to ensure their participation in an appeal hearing.
9.  Both the applicant and his counsel, who he had chosen and who had represented him at the trial, lodged their appeals challenging the Regional Court's judgment on factual and legal grounds, without stating the wish to take part in the appeal hearing. They claimed, in particular, that the trial court's findings had not been based on the facts of the case and that the court had used for the applicant's conviction the evidence obtained in breach of the criminal procedural law. It appears that some time later the applicant discharged his representative owing to a lack of financial means.
10.  On 13 July 2004 the Registry of the Supreme Court despatched a summons for an appeal hearing. It contained several words:
“For information ... the case of Kononov Krasnov Lukyanov Miroshnichenko Nepomnyashchikh is to be heard on 27 July 2004 at 10”.
The applicant was served with the court notification on 15 July 2004.
11.  On 27 July 2004 the Supreme Court held an oral hearing. The applicant and his lawyer did not appear. The appeal court did not examine the question whether they had been duly summoned and, if they had not, whether the examination of their appeals should have been adjourned. The public prosecutor and one of the applicant's co-defendants were present and made their submissions. The prosecutor, in particular, asked to re-categorise the crime and uphold the trial court's judgment in the remaining part. On the same date the Supreme Court delivered a judgment by which it dismissed the applicant's appeal as being unsubstantiated and upheld his conviction and sentence in their entirety.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Békéscsaba.
6.  On 15 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant – who had lived in Hungary since 1986 – and his accomplices on charges of aggravated fraud and other offences.
7.  On 8 March 1999 the police withdrew the applicant's passport in view of the pending prosecution. The applicant did not appeal against an administrative decision of 15 April 1998 confirming this measure, which thus became final on 18 May 1999.
8.  In 1999, and then on 15 August and 12 December 2000 and 16 December 2002 the applicant requested that his passport be returned to him; the last occasion related to his attending his grandmother's funeral in the Ukraine. His requests were to no avail. In pursuit of his subsequent request of 17 October 2005, on 11 January 2006 he was informed that the authority in charge was unable to locate his passport. The passport was found and returned to him only on 11 September 2006.
9.  Meanwhile, on 24 July 2002 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment in the case.
10.  After several hearings, on 26 April 2007 the applicant was acquitted.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kranj.
6.  On 29 March 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company Zavarovalnica Triglav before the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages for the injuries sustained in a car accident.
7.  Between 30 May 2002 and 14 March 2003 the applicant lodged thirteen preliminary written submissions.
8.  On 14 January 2003 the first hearing was held.
9.  Between 11 February 2003 and 8 May 2003 three hearings were held.
10.  On 12 May 2003 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission.
11.  Between 19 June 2003 and 18 December 2003 three more hearings were held. At the last of these three hearing the first-instance court appointed a road traffic expert and adjourned the case indefinitely.
12.  On 7 October 2004 the applicant urged the court to set a date for a hearing.
13.  On 15 February 2005 the expert submitted his opinion.
14.  Between 10 March 2005 and 19 April 2005 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.
15.  Between 14 September 2005 and 23 November 2005 three hearings were held.
16.  Between 13 March 2006 and 4 April 2006 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.
17.  On 29 January 2007 a hearing was held.
18.  The applicant lodged preliminary written submissions on 12 and 20 February 2007.
19.  At the last hearing, on 19 March 2007, the parties reached a settlement and the proceedings were concluded.
5.  The applicant is a limited partnership under liquidation, with its seat in Pécs.
6.  In 1996 the Tax Authority established that the applicant owed some 10 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in outstanding taxes. To secure this claim, on 10 April 1997 it attached a 100%-share the applicant had in another company, which was nominally worth over HUF 103 million. Aware of the applicant’s own intention to sell the share by 30 June 1997, the Tax Authority forbade the transaction but did not proceed to auctioning it within the statutory two-month deadline or afterwards.
7.  In the ensuing two-year-long administrative procedure, the applicant’s tax debt was eventually cancelled and the asset unfrozen. However, by that time the company in which the share belonged had been liquidated – as of July 1997 – and the share had lost its value altogether.
8.  Some time in 1999 the applicant sued the Tax Authority for damages. On 12 December 2000 the Baranya County Regional Court awarded it HUF 103 million. On 13 June 2002 the Supreme Court quashed this decision. On 3 June 2003 the Regional Court again found for the plaintiff.
9.  On appeal, on 6 May 2004 the Pécs Court of Appeal reversed this judgment and rejected the applicant’s action. It held in essence that there had been no causal link between the Tax Authority’s unlawful omission to hold an auction to sell the attached asset within two months from its attachment, as required by section 116(1) of the Enforcement Act 1994, and the damage the plaintiff had sustained. In the court’s view, the burden of proof to show that had there been a timely auction the share could have successfully been sold to a buyer with the requisite liquidity lay with the applicant. However, the applicant could not prove this assertion. The court observed that the buyer suggested by the applicant had never had, according to its books, the capital needed for the acquisition; that the company in which the share belonged had lost all its own capital by early 1997 and been in liquidation as of July 1997; and that its manager had been convicted of fraudulent bankruptcy.
10.  On 16 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. This decision was served on 22 April 2005. The applicant’s request for a re-opening was to no avail.
4.  The applicants were born in 1943, 1964 and 1953 respectively and live in Sofia.
5.  In 1966 the first applicant and her husband bought from the Sofia municipality a three-room flat of 78 square metres, situated in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1946.
6.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1993 the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the property brought proceedings against the first applicant and her husband under section 7 of the Restitution Law. They also sought a rei vindicatio order.
7.  In 2001 the first applicant’s husband died, leaving as heirs the three applicants (the second and third applicants were his children). Accordingly, after that the first applicant owned two-thirds of the flat and the second and third applicants one sixth each.
8.  The proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 January 2006. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void because the mayor’s decision in 1966 to sell the disputed flat to the first applicant and her husband had not been approved by the Minister of Finance, as required at the time, but by another official. The applicants disputed this conclusion in their appeals lodged in the framework of the proceedings.
9.  The courts also allowed the claimants’ rei vindicatio action and ordered the first applicant, who was at the time living alone in the flat, to vacate it. She did so in August 2006. In May 2008 she was provided with the tenancy of a small municipally-owned flat, where she moved in.
10.  On 19 April 2006 the applicants applied to receive compensation bonds. By an order of the Sofia regional governor of 25 September 2006 this was refused as the applicants had not complied with the statutory requirement to apply for such bonds within two months after the final judgment given in the proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law.
11.  The applicants appealed, pointing out that they had missed the relevant time-limit because the first applicant had been ill. Nevertheless, in a final judgment of 19 May 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the governor’s refusal.
12.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, §§ 110-41, 15 March 2007).
13.  Pursuant to section 9(4) of the Compensation Law persons who have lost property under section 7 of the Restitution Law can apply for compensation bonds within two months after the final judgment under section 7 given in their case. It is the constant practice of the domestic courts to apply strictly this time-limit, without regard to the reasons which might have led to the interested parties having missed it (see, for example, judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court no. 12745 of 25 November 2008, case no. 2988/2008, and no. 3413 of 16 March 2009, case no. 5928/2008).